[JANDG]

I am thinking of using a pair of Jordan drivers for the wide ranger in a hybrid OB set up I use. I clamped some 4" Calrad's from years gone by directly next to my B200's. The results stunned me & I am going to persue this road..I run active plates on Vifa m26wr-0908's bass drivers in OBV on same baffle ran to 150Hz 4th order & a 300B PP amp @ 22w for the wideranger. I also have a pair of G2 & Neo cd3 ribbons if neccissary, but would prefer not to use these. I listen @ less than 10' ..Has anyone ran Jordans OB w/ bass support & which Jordans should I order..? The imgaing &  rightness of the 4" & maybe not having to run any filter of any type is VERY appealing to me. Any suggestion will be very welcomed on the Jordans. Also I am going Jordan because I think the reviews stand as it bieng the best 4" FR out there.

[el`Ol]

I never heard a Jordan fullrange, just the little Jordan as midranger in a japanese box at the Highend this year. For my taste this speaker had the ugliest midrange at the whole show (closely followed by the ATC midrange dome). For something smaller than the B200 with less beaming, why not try the Ciare HX132?

[JANDG]

Hello..Where would I source the Ciare HX132..?

[el`Ol]

That`s the problem. Probably not in the US. In Germany it is available at http://www.spectrumaudio.de
An alternative would be the new little Hemp. But it would have to be crossed higher because of lower Qts/earlier rolloff.

[Jim Griffin]

Kurt Chang (he posts as Kchang on Audio Asylum) posted several times 5 years ago on his Jordan JX92S open baffle with woofer augmentation project in the AA's High Efficiency Speaker Asylum.  I heard and saw it at the Midwest Audiofest in 2002.  You can search the High Efficiency Speaker Asylum for his comments. 

The JX92S is an outstanding driver and I've used it in sealed, vented, and MLTL boxes with exceptional results.  You would have to work hard to get it to sound bad in my opinion for midrange perofrmance.  As with most small full range drivers, you'll get some beaming above 3000 Hz but nothing like you experience with say 8" drivers.

As you would expect a 4 inch driver will have bass limitations when used on an open baffle but with bass augmentation you can be successful.  The JX92S has 4.5 mm Xmax so you can get acceptable midbass on an open baffle. 

With the MLTL enclosure version of the JX92S, I achieve bass below 40 Hz so it has capability beyond its size in a box.  Thanks to Martin King for his MLTL spread sheets.

Jim

[JANDG]

Where would I source the JX92S Jordan ..? I am in US. I searched, but could not find a US source for these..Canada.maybe..? Thanks, I did think on the little 5" hemp from A Brown Soun but the XO above 150Hz is not a possiblity for the time bieng. I like running the BASH plates for bass augmentation, they are tough as nails. I abuse them regularly.. I do have the boosted on the bottom end also. Kurt also suggested the TangBang 4" bamboo driver to me for this project. I do have a felling the Jordan will win this battle though, I really need to just get them & find out for myself.

[Jim Griffin]

Jandg,

The current Jordan distributor for North America is Mark Audio (www.markaudio.com) based in Hong Kong.  They ship via air to the US so you don't have to wait for a slow boat from China.  The JX92S drivers aren't cheap ($390 per pair including shipping) but their performance is worth the consideration.  I like mine.

Jim

[JANDG]

Here is a pic of Baffle experimenter style..If the Jordans don't work out on OB, I will just build your Jordan monitor with the G2 ribbons I allready have, I also have a need for a nice monitor. I don't mind the price, really not bad considering full & mostly awfull commercial offerings @ 1k. I have some 1k & up monitors that do not keep up with my OB's shown, even with the little $ 20.00 Calrads in the middle of baffle. Hi-passed line-level I can get some good spl out of em. I am sure the Jordans will bring what I want..The little yellow Kevlar drivers shown are some JVC 3" from there highend  mini monitors, the solid cherry ones..Cool little driver & can also get these to perform quite well & way loud enough w/ 22w of tube power.Hi=passed of course, but only a single .01uf cap @ input of amp. No filters bieng used. I should be able to order the Jordans by weeks end. Thanks for the source for them...

[ttan98]

JANDG,

Do you use equalizer at the bottom end, eg 30-100hz on the OB woofer? if yes elaborate if no please advise what type of woofer did you use and what freq. response are you getting?

thanks.

[JANDG]

No EQ, just BASH active plate's,300S series, in there own boxes behing the baffle, I did boost the very bottom according to BASH specs w/ some resistor changes, I do not know what frequency range I am getting, I can only compare by ear with my other systems.I feel I am missing very little with the Calrad & alot with the JVC Kevlar FR driver in  midbass region150-300hz I would say.. The Calrad 4" alnico is surprisingly effeciant.If I went 2nd order line level on it I'm sure I could get it even better. The JVC is not a good OB driver..The little Calrads are very good OB drivers, I think they were old intercom drivers in the day.The plates are set @ 150hz, ..No shout, no upper end wierdness w/ the Calrads,,not even a little,, Could use a helper for the very top..10k maybe..but that would be it..just playing till the Jordans get here.......I have ran the BASH plates in very small unvented boxes & abuse the heck out of them..highly recommended for a quick & easy solution to active bottom help. Vifa M26wr-0908's are the bass drivers if you wanted to know..Not impact driver, but very detailed bass ..There is a guy on bay who is selling NOS Calrad ft-8 I think for cheap, 20.00 a pair I think on BIN, they are the bigger brother to these FT-5.I bet $ to donuts they would kick the sh.........out of many a spendy 8" fullranger..

[rajacat]

Speaking about small hemp drivers.  The Omega 4.5 inch hemp drivers are very succulent. I'm not sure how they would work in OB but inside my Omega Hemp Dipoles V.1 cabinets they are very 3D, detailed and rich.

Raj

[Dmason]

With a Q/ts .4, Fs 70Hz, I see no reason why the Hemp 4.5 wouldnt do very well on a baffle shooting for 150Hz or so. I would start with an 18 inch test baffle and cut it down to 15-16 inches... I would think about using two of them per side to raise SPL to ~91-92db, lower distortion, excursion, etc., possibly even low passing the lower one, or using a 5Ohm resistor to raise Q but then you are putting junk in the way of the precious signal.

I bet the Omega bipole hemps are amazing If I had a larger pad, I would head straight for those. I would also bet the HempTone 4.5 is the pick of the litter in the hemp tone thang...

[Docere]

>>> I would also bet the HempTone 4.5 is the pick of the litter in the hemp tone thang... <<<

It is just a shame the efficiency is too low to use with my intended amps. Yeah, I could run 'em parallel, but then they are a 4ohm load, not the best for output transformers. I could run 'em in series, but no gain in sensitivity. I would need to run four for them per side, PLLXO at the the amp input, and use a plate amp for the bass to get what I would want. The Hemp Acoustics equivalent relieves me of the need for running four, even if running four has other advantages...

Cheers
Raymond

[Dmason]

Hi Docere

Could you elaborate a little bit on your last sentence, above? Extend your thinking on the Pecker model...

[Docere]

Hi Dan

Just that the ~4.5" Pecker model is somewhat more efficient than the Harrison (spelling?) cone equivalent, making it a more viable option for lower power amps. The Harrison coned driver seems a little smoother up top tho, according to the FR plots at least. As for the relative abilities of each in presenting music, some of those that have heard them are remaining tight-lipped. I await further elaboration on the merits of these drivers.

Cheers
Raymond

[Dmason]

I would be very surprised if they werent identical, with differing cone compounds. The "matrix" part of the Pecker model is actually kevlar, not great for music, if you ever listened to B&W. These are made at the same factory, as far as I know. As for published FR plots, they both look entirely "painted." The feedback from the Omega XRS owners is astoundingly positive, but I doubt there is such a thing as a true 92db cone of 4.5" diameter.

[Docere]

Hi Dan

I defer to your far greater experience in these matters; however, I will place some qualifications on said deference...

I agree that 100% Kevlar cones are perhaps not conducive to the way I like music presented. However, as an inclusion in a 'matrix' with other compounds, it may offer some benefits. Likewise, hemp cones may be very much conducive to the way I like music presented, however, that does not mean it can not be improved via the addition of other compounds.

There are too many variables to suggest that experiences with the 'pure' compound (for want of a more accurate word - my brain has shut down for holidays) can be translated to its performance in a mix or that a pure 'good' product is inherently better than a "matrix". Just too many variables, both WRT to cone formulation and the measurement (with our ears) and interpretation... So, the 'pure' hemps may be 'beter', but maybe not.

As for the Omega folks, well, I do not mean to be judgemental or disrespectful, but in order to assess the relevance of their comments, I must place their comments in some context. In general, they seem to churn-over their speakers rather regularly and over-enthusiastically hype each new product (ie, the current product is sooo much better than the previous, even tho the previous was sooo great). Product limitations are rarely discussed and exposure to, or investigation of, other products/approaches is often limited. I believe each person is genuine in their praise, however, I do have doubts regarding the relevance of their comments beyond comparison between Omega products. Actually, I have doubts regarding even that. Please note, this is common to many manufacturer-only forums and is not specific to Omega.

I state this because: although the Harrison cone drivers may be great, compared to Fostex, loaded in a fourth-order phart box (er, BR), does not mean that one or two ~4.5" Harrison cones will translate to an awesome musical experience for me in my (intended) system... That said, the feedback is positive, so perhaps they might; I will possibly give them the chance, based on my own qualitative mini mental meta-analysis  That said, I had a great musical experience with a friend last night, listening through his relatively inexpensive system which utilised Kevlar drivers (oh, the blasphemy); I enjoy music through dodgy computer 'speakers, portable stereo 'speakers, and a (crap) iPod with KSC-75 'phones...

Cheers
Raymond